NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the kind of thing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4545186.stm)that you see in bad comedy skits. One wouldn't expect it from the most civilized nation on earth. Can anyone justify why an ambulance should not be exempt from most traffic regulations? Or is this what we should expect from a Big Brother government that relies on remote sensing and bureacracy, instead of police officers and common sense.


Ambulance driver gets speed fine
An ambulance firm that delivers organs for transplant claims a police force is refusing to quash a speeding fine after a driver was caught by a speed camera.

M&L Ambulance Service, a private London firm, said Thames Valley Police was refusing to waiver Lee Schramm's £60 fine and three points on his licence.

Can anyone justify why an ambulance should not be exempt from most traffic regulations?

They are, if they're on an emergency call. This guy must not have been.

EDIT: Which is something the attached article makes clear.

This is the kind of thing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4545186.stm)that you see in bad comedy skits. One wouldn't expect it from the most civilized nation on earth. Can anyone justify why an ambulance should not be exempt from most traffic regulations? Or is this what we should expect from a Big Brother government that relies on remote sensing and bureacracy, instead of police officers and common sense.

Was he delivering a vital organ to someone about to go into surgery? Or was he just going really fast for no reason?

They are, if they're on an emergency call. This guy must not have been.

EDIT: Which is something the attached article makes clear.


No, the article said he didn't have his lights on.

The company says they've provided the information.

The police say they haven't.

They are, if they're on an emergency call. This guy must not have been.

EDIT: Which is something the attached article makes clear.
All I read in the article is that the camera didn't see his flashing blue light. Clearly his mission was urgent and a timely delivery of organs was required. If a human had noticed him slighlty over the speed limit, he would have probably just ignored the infraction. Given a lick of common sense, a human most certainly would not have issued a ticket after a brief explanation of the mission and maybe a caution to the driver to turn on his lights.

My objection is with the blind reliance on remote sensing for revenue raising purposes, as well as the bureacracy that makes it so hard to get a computer made decision reversed.

No, the article said he didn't have his lights on.

The company says they've provided the information.

The police say they haven't.

where does it say the company provided information?

it says theyve been 'in contact with' and 'have spoken to' the police, but it doesnt say 'we gave the required infomation'. sounds like they are trying to blag their way out of it.

No flashing blue light = not on emergency.

That's pretty simple.

However, the Police then allow the company to show that it was an emergency.

Which they, apparently, haven't.

When they do the fine and points will be waved.

I agree. No light = fuck you, pay up.

Between this and your other topic Myrmidonisia, it seems to me that you are trying to catch up on slandering in passing those people you don't agree with.

No one thinks that blind reliance on automation is a bad thing? That's interesting. Kinda sad, though.

And Pantsman, I'm not sure how this thread even remotely qualifies as slander, nor am I sure how one can slander a Kennedy -- not Teddy anyway.

Can a public figure actually be slandered or libeled? I don't think so. Not as long as it's not done maliciously. And whatever I say about Teddy is with pity in my heart.

And Pantsman, I'm not sure how this thread even remotely qualifies as slander, nor am I sure how one can slander a Kennedy -- not Teddy anyway.
Everyone seems to want to prove me right in their manner of disagreeing.

No one thinks that blind reliance on automation is a bad thing? That's interesting. Kinda sad, though.

There is no blind reliance on the camera.

The ambulance firm has been given four weeks to provide information on if the ambulance was on an emergency call or not.

There is no blind reliance on the camera.

The ambulance firm has been given four weeks to provide information on if the ambulance was on an emergency call or not.
Maybe so, but couldn't a human police officer have made a judgment on the spot? A decision like that is what people are good at. That would have also short cut the bureaucratic process that is now in operation. Would have saved the ambulance company some headaches. Would have allowed the DMV to assist customers with real needs. Would have provided an opportunity to correct a oversight on the part of the ambulance driver immediately, rather than after the fact. Maybe even given the police officer a chance to escort the ambulance if time was truly critical.

Or if the violation was flagrant, the human could have acted on it right away.

Nah, it's better to jump through governmental hoops.

Maybe so, but couldn't a human police officer have made a judgment on the spot?

Most possibly.

Assuming that we have enough police officers spare to make sure people aren't speeding and issuing tickets accordingly.

Would have allowed the DMV to assist customers with real needs.

What's the DMV? :confused:

What's the DMV?Department of Motor Vehicles. If there isn't one where you live, just replace those three letters with the part of the government that issues driver licenses and keeps a list of your traffic fines

Between this and your other topic Myrmidonisia, it seems to me that you are trying to catch up on slandering in passing those people you don't agree with.

By attacking a disagreement over a minor traffic infraction. Crazy.

I think it's a sad state of affairs that a minor traffic violation is considered fuel for a thread on any forum, let alone wot is ostensibly a political forum.

Ho-hum, guys. Slow news day?